ArticleMalawi medical journal : the journal of Medical Association of Malawi2024
Utilisation of standardised outcomes measures by clinical Physiotherapists working in Namibia: a nationwide cross-sectional study.
Article in Malawi medical journal : the journal of Medical Association of Malawi, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Perceived facilitators and barriers to routine utilisation of standardised outcome measures among physiotherapists in Namibia.Ghana medical journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The utilisation of standardised outcome measures (SOMs) is crucial for evaluating patients' health status. Physiotherapists are highly recommended to use SOMs routinely. Despite the well-documented benefits of using SOMs, the utilisation of SOMs in clinical practice is still problematic particularly in Africa. In Namibia, there is dearth of information about SOMs utilisation by physiotherapists and the associated factors. This study was aimed at determining the extent of routine utilisation of SOMs and the associated demographic and work-related factors among physiotherapists. Methods: A cross-sectional, nationwide, online survey was conducted and all registered qualified physiotherapists and intern physiotherapists working in public or private hospitals/clinics were invited to participate. Data was analysed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 29.0. The Chi-square (χ Results: Of 230 participants who received the invitational link, 99 (43.0%) responded timeously to the call to participate. Although 97.9% (n=94) of the participants indicated having used at least one type of SOMs in the last six months, the frequency of utilisation varied. Routine utilisation, defined as 70%-100% of the time, was reported in only 49.0% of the participants. The Chi-square test only showed significant findings for gender (p=0.01) and clinical specialty (p=0.004). The odds of utilising SOMs were 4.13 greater among physiotherapists with a clinical specialty and 3.88 times greater for females than males. Conclusion: The rates for routine utilisation of SOMs by Namibian physiotherapists are unfavourable. Female gender and clinical specialty influenced the utilisation of SOMs in daily clinical practice. Cognisant of the study limitations, these results call for the need to improve the routine utilisation of the SOMs in Namibia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.